I am a graduate student of philosophy at the University of Notre Dame.
My philosophical interests are largely in metaphysics in epistemology. I have some interest in quite general questions about what things there are, what they are like, and what can be known of them. But I am most interested in we human beings, and our powers and place in the world.
We are extraordinary creatures. Our capacity for thought, feeling, and moral action is (so far as we know) unmatched in the animal kingdom. And yet, we are members of that kingdom. We are, like the other animals, components of the natural world. Are these two theses in tension? Must we deny that we're special if we are in nature? This is the hardest question I’ve found. And I’ve dedicated much of my philosophical attention thus far to answering it.
My project is to show that we can have our cake and eat it too. It might be that we humans are in nature in several important respects and yet are still unique. In my work thus far I've tried to defend this harmonious suggestion by defending a cluster of related compatibility claims. Two examples. First, it might be that we are determined and yet still morally responsible creatures--apt candidates for praise and blame. Determinism is no threat to our dignity. Second, it might be that we human persons are material objects, and yet are still capable of thought, feeling, and moral action. Materialism too, is no cause for fret.
Sometimes I blog--but not lately. I Facebook.
I am an INTJ, I drive a Honda CRV, and my goal is to live a happy life.